Attack of the Judaizers

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Oct 31, 2011
8,200
182
0
Paul calls it mutilation and that is why I call it mutilation.

Thayers Greek lexicon states this is mutilation also. Also the dictionary states:
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Please note definition 3 above. Removal of the foreskin is mutilation, especially when it is done for no reason at all. The gentiles converts should never of been circumcised. I am not calling all circumcision mutilation, just the type of Circumcision done on gentiles today for no medical or no valid religious reason. Yes, that is certainly mutilation.
What I am trying to address is your attitude toward the rituals as something terrible that God gave before Christ was resurrected. They were of God, they are not for "ain't God just awful to suggest that?" sort of thinking. God had a good reason to tell the Jews to practice them. Paul explains we are to use the Holy Spirit, now that Christ gave this to every believer, to guide us instead of the rituals God gave before all believers had the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is to guide us in the very same way that the rituals were given to guide.

I think it is very wrong when you say how God did it before is so terrible. God is God, we are to listen.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Elin said:
Hizikyah said:
Elin said:
Jer is referring to a specific situation in the history of the Jews.

So let's look at that.

Jeremiah is referring to the rebellion of Judah wherein she flagrantly broke God's law and
violated the Sinaitic covenant by prostituting herself (Jer 2:20) in running after pagan gods (Jer 2:23).

To "forget my name" is to forget God himself, his law, his covenant, it's not to forget the word "Yahweh."

And for forgetting God himself, his law and covenant, Judah was exiled to Babylon.

However, there was a return from Babylon, and a restoration of the walls of Jerusalem, the Temple and the word of God.

Jer 23:26-27 does not refer to anything after the return from exile and restoration.

Your Judaizing mindset combs the OT for ways to Judaize the NT, and in the process misunderstands and misuses the OT
to do so.
I agree,

Israylites called Yahweh Baal. literally,
Can you show in Scripture where they actually did that?
but modern teaching does the same, replaces His name with Lord.
And the fact that you use a text, which does not mean that Jews forgot the word "Yahweh,"

nor does it even apply now after the exile,

to demonstrate that using the word "Lord" is to forget the name of God

is not incongruent to you?


You show that your hermeneutic is based in incongruity.
See Hos 2:16 "And it shall be at that day, saith YHVH, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and
shalt call me no more Baali."
Thanks.

Okay, if we're going to translate the Hebrew into English, let's translate all of it into English

and not miss the Hebrew play on the two words for "husband"
("ishi" and "master," where "master" is also "Baali")

used to describe
1) the restored relationship with God
2) causing such a reaction against Baal worship that the Hebrew word for 'my master' (Baali)
will no longer be used of the LORD, but instead the other Hebrew word for 'my husband' (Ishi)
will be used of the LORD.

Hos 2:14, 16-17:

"Behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably to her. . .

'And it shall be in that day,' declares the LORD, 'you will call me 'my husband' (Ishi);
you will no longer call me 'my master' (Baali).

I will remove the names of the Baals (pagan gods) from their lips
no longer will their names be invoked.' "

The text does not state that they actually used the word Baal for Yahweh,

only that they worshipped the Baals instead of Yahweh,

which is what is meant by "forget my name" in Jer 23:27.

There is no Biblical basis for stating that using the word "Lord" is to "forget God's name."

The assertion is based in a misunderstanding of the meaning, and a wrong application, of Jer 23:27,
as well as applying it to the wrong time.

 
Last edited:

Hizikyah

Senior Member
Aug 25, 2013
11,634
372
0
Thanks.

Okay, is we're going to translate the Hebrew into English, let's translate all of it into English

and not miss the Hebrew play on the two words for "husband"
("ishi" and "master," where "master" is also "Baali")

used to describe
1) the restored relationship with God
2) causing such a reaction against Baal worship that the Hebrew word for 'my master' (Baali)
will no longer be used of the LORD, but instead the other Hebrew word for 'my husband' (Ishi)
will be used of the LORD.

Hos 2:14, 16-17:

"Behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably to her. . .

'And it shall be in that day,' declares the LORD, 'you will call me 'my husband' (Ishi);
you will no longer call me 'my master' (Baali).

I will remove the names of the Baals (pagan gods) from their lips
no longer will their names be invoked.' "

The text does not state that they actually used the word Baal for Yahweh,

only that they worshipped the Baals instead of Yahweh,

which is what is meant by "forget my name" in Jer 23:27.

There is no Biblical basis for stating that using the word "Lord" is to "forget God's name."

The assertion is based in a misunderstanding of the meaning, and a wrong application, of Jer 23:27,
as well as applying it to the wrong time.

You are very dishonest in your debate, you ignore half of what I say cut out parts of my posts, reply to the parts you want, and play on a twisting and running with the parts you want, continuing on in a direction that has already been addressed.

Fact is Lord has replace YHWH at least 6,823 times, most Bibles say a vague description of this in the intro.

Micahyah 4:5, "For all people walk each in the name of his god, but we will walk in the Name of Yahweh our Father forever and ever."

Proverbs 30:4, "Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound up the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His Name? And what is the Name of His Son? Tell me, if you know!"
 

Hizikyah

Senior Member
Aug 25, 2013
11,634
372
0
Isayah 52:6, "Therefore My people will know My Name; Therefore they will know in that day that I am He Who speaks. Behold, it is I!"

Isayah 42:8, "I am Yahweh, that is MY NAME; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
You are very dishonest in your debate, you ignore half of what I say cut out parts of my posts, reply to the parts you want, and play on a twisting and running with the parts you want, continuing on in a direction that has already been addressed.

Fact is Lord has replace YHWH at least 6,823 times
, most Bibles say a vague description of this in the intro.
Yes, and there is no biblical basis for maintaining that doing so is to "forget God's name." (Jer 23:27)

That's just more Judaizing of the text.
 
Oct 31, 2011
8,200
182
0
Yes, and there is no biblical basis for maintaining that doing so is to "forget God's name." (Jer 23:27)

That's just more Judaizing of the text.
You use the word Judaizing in the same way that those who believe all the word use the word sin. Would you explain to us just what you see in that word that you think God is so powerfully against.

To me it simply means to use rituals to lead us to spiritual truths instead of only the Holy Spirit, and Paul speaks to those who deny the Holy Spirit as a guide. Therefore, I do not see the word as a sort of dirty word, but the misuse of rituals as a dirty way to use them.

You see it in the same light as we see sin, evidently. Could you explain?
 

Hizikyah

Senior Member
Aug 25, 2013
11,634
372
0
Yes, and there is no biblical basis for maintaining that doing so is to "forget God's name." (Jer 23:27)

That's just more Judaizing of the text.
Yeremyah 23:26-27, "How long will this be in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies? Yes, they are prophets of the deceit of their own minds; Who devise; plan and scheme, to cause My people to forget My Name through their dreams, which they tell every man to his neighbor, just as their fathers have forgotten My Name for Baal; (Lord.)"

Ok, so the pharisees forbid speaking Yahweh;s name, in verbal and wrtten form YHWH was replaced with adonai (adonai is Hebrew for Lord, Baal is Cannanite for Lord).

The Masorites added vowel points into the text making YHWH adonai, when english and latin speaking translators translated it it got translated Lord or Jehovah.

Most Bibles will say in the intro, they went with the tradition of using Lord in place of YHWH.

New International Version - Preface
"In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions...of rendering that name as "LORD" in capital letters to distinguish it from adonai, another Hebrew word rendered "Lord" for which small letters are used.

Today's English Version - Preface
Following an ancient tradition...begun by the first translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Septuagint) and followed by the vast majority of English translations, the distinctive Hebrew name for God (usually transliterated Jehovah or Yahweh), is in this translation represented by "LORD." When Adonai, normally translated "Lord," occurs preposed to Yahweh, the combination is rendered by the phrase "Sovereign LORD."

Revised English Bible - Introduction to the Old Testament
The divine name (YHWH in Hebrew characters) was probably pronounced 'Yahweh', but the name was regarded as ineffable, too sacred to be pronounced.

American Standard Version - Preface
"I. The change first proposed in the Appendix --- that which substitutes "Jehovah" for "LORD" and "GOD" (printed in small capitals) --- is one which will be unwelcome by many, because of the frequency and familiarity of the terms displaced. But the American Revisers, after a careful consideration, were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament, as it fortunately does not in the numerous versions made by modern missionaries.

Revised Standard Version - Preface
"A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the rendering of the Divine Name, the "Tetragrammaton." The American Standard Version used the term "Jehovah"; the King James Version had employed this in four places, but everywhere else, except in three cases where it was employed as part of a proper name, used the English word LORD (or in certain cases GOD) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of the King James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew scriptures in the synagogue.

Removing His name is literally against Yahweh's Law.

But most claim to not be under the dominion of Yahweh so to most what Yahweh says dosent even matter.

Mark 7:7-9, "But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. For laying aside the Law of Yahweh, you hold the tradition of men! Then He said to them: How well you reject the Law of Yahweh, so that you may keep your own tradition!"
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Yeremyah 23:26-27, "How long will this be in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies? Yes, they are prophets of the deceit of their own minds; Who devise; plan and scheme, to cause My people to forget My Name through their dreams, which they tell every man to his neighbor, just as
their fathers have forgotten My Name for Baal; (Lord.)"
Previously addressed, here.
 
Last edited:
Sep 1, 2013
543
8
0
For you to say that Judaization is making rituals without which one cannot be saved is a terrible thing to say about God's instructions to us.
Actually I meant "without which one can be saved". I tried to change it but my 5 minutes had expired.

But that's really what YOU said not what I meant. You said:

“When Paul used this term [Judadizer], Paul was talking about making rituals necessary to becoming Christian."

Now to all those who call themselves “Christian” around the world to most of them being "Christian" is the same as being "saved". So what you actually said is:

When Paul used this term [Judadizer], Paul was talking about making rituals necessary to [be saved] becoming Christian.”

So if making rituals are necessary to be saved ("becoming a Christian") then that is your doctrine. And if that is not what you mean then you made a mistake like me.
 
D

danschance

Guest
What I am trying to address is your attitude toward the rituals as something terrible that God gave before Christ was resurrected. They were of God, they are not for "ain't God just awful to suggest that?" sort of thinking. God had a good reason to tell the Jews to practice them. Paul explains we are to use the Holy Spirit, now that Christ gave this to every believer, to guide us instead of the rituals God gave before all believers had the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is to guide us in the very same way that the rituals were given to guide.

I think it is very wrong when you say how God did it before is so terrible. God is God, we are to listen.
God does nothing wrong. I am not sure what you are implying. I never said or implied the old rituals that Jews performed were wrong. I said circumcision today is mutilation. In America it is common for doctors to strap babies down with no pain meds and cut or burn the fore skin off. The baby screams as it is being done. Why is it done on non-jewish babies? I have no idea, but it is barbaric mutilation. You don't believe me? Go watch a youtube circumcision of an infant, if you have the stomach for such things.
 
Oct 31, 2011
8,200
182
0
Actually I meant "without which one can be saved". I tried to change it but my 5 minutes had expired.

But that's really what YOU said not what I meant. You said:

“When Paul used this term [Judadizer], Paul was talking about making rituals necessary to becoming Christian."

Now to all those who call themselves “Christian” around the world to most of them being "Christian" is the same as being "saved". So what you actually said is:

When Paul used this term [Judadizer], Paul was talking about making rituals necessary to [be saved] becoming Christian.”

So if making rituals are necessary to be saved ("becoming a Christian") then that is your doctrine. And if that is not what you mean then you made a mistake like me
.
I have never said that rituals are necessary for salvation. God has never said that rituals are necessary for salvation. No matter how you promote this idea, it is not so.

Paul was against teaching rituals, Paul wanted to only teach the spiritual meaning that rituals were to lead to. If we are looking for truth, both of us, we would both agree to that. You would not try to put your mind into my mind or God's mind, either.
 
Oct 31, 2011
8,200
182
0
what distortions I see here! And the key is the same old rant, the law won't save. Any Christian knows this, and to accuse what you call judaizers of this is pure sin. It is also sinful to say that people who want such as "honor your Father and Mother" kept in the bible as valid are Judaizers. Judaizers listen to Paul as Paul says rituals are not necessary, those who gossip about Judaizers say that Paul wants us to ignore much of scripture.

Judaizers do not preach circumcision, that is a lie about what they are saying. Why that is done only the devil knows. They do preach to read the scriptures about God's orders to ask the physical circumcision be done, against the opposition saying it was wrong of God to ask it. They ask that Christians look into the change in the order and what that change was exactly and why scripture changed it. The opposition says to label circumcision wrong (how about spiritual circumcision?) and wrong of God in the first place, simply put their human judgment on it.

Judaizers accuse you who preach ignoring the bible of preaching that. Your accusations of the Judaizers are straight from the anti Christ, asking that we do not honor God but ignore what a man chooses to ignore, not asking God. And you quote Paul, who was directed by God as leading you to do this. And you actually say that we are not saved!!!!!!
 
Sep 1, 2013
543
8
0
I have never said that rituals are necessary for salvation. .
But that is what you said Paul was talking about. Here is your exact quote: "Paul was talking about making rituals necessary to becoming Christian.”

Are you actually saying that Paul was making rituals necessary to becoming Christian.” .... which is the same to many Christians as necessary to be saved? And if that is not what you are saying then why say it?
 
V

Veritas

Guest
God does nothing wrong. I am not sure what you are implying. I never said or implied the old rituals that Jews performed were wrong. I said circumcision today is mutilation. In America it is common for doctors to strap babies down with no pain meds and cut or burn the fore skin off. The baby screams as it is being done. Why is it done on non-jewish babies? I have no idea, but it is barbaric mutilation. You don't believe me? Go watch a youtube circumcision of an infant, if you have the stomach for such things.
Let me be clear, circumcision was NOT a "ritual". It was a commandment. What it seems like you are saying is that what YHWH commanded Abraham to do is "barbaric mutilation". Saying, "I never said or implied the old rituals that Jews performed were wrong." Then saying in the next breath, it is "barbaric mutilation" is questionable. Careful...

(It's too bad we can't have a conversation about this, because it is difficult to have reasonable discourse while waiting for hours or days for a response for clarification.)

The way it is done today in hospitals is not the way it was done according to scripture. My daughter's doctor wanted her to bring in her son for circumcision when he was less than 8 days. She knew better and waited. Hebrew baby boys are not circumcised until the eighth day because that is what is commanded, but that is also when vit K manifests itself in the system and allows for clotting.

The scripture from Romans 7:6 you quote out of context to support your assertion that we are free from the Law. Verse 7 says, "What then shall we say? Is the Torah sin? Let it not be! However, I did not know sin except through the Torah. For also the covetousness I knew not if the Torah had not said, 'You shall not covet'." One must also read what comes before verse 6 to get an understanding.
 
Sep 1, 2013
543
8
0
That is probably because she is laboring so hard over you.
I agree... it's a laborious task to accomplish the impossible: bringing all those contradictions together to present them as making sense.
 
D

danschance

Guest
Let me be clear, circumcision was NOT a "ritual". It was a commandment. What it seems like you are saying is that what YHWH commanded Abraham to do is "barbaric mutilation". Saying, "I never said or implied the old rituals that Jews performed were wrong." Then saying in the next breath, it is "barbaric mutilation" is questionable. Careful...

(It's too bad we can't have a conversation about this, because it is difficult to have reasonable discourse while waiting for hours or days for a response for clarification.)

The way it is done today in hospitals is not the way it was done according to scripture. My daughter's doctor wanted her to bring in her son for circumcision when he was less than 8 days. She knew better and waited. Hebrew baby boys are not circumcised until the eighth day because that is what is commanded, but that is also when vit K manifests itself in the system and allows for clotting.

The scripture from Romans 7:6 you quote out of context to support your assertion that we are free from the Law. Verse 7 says, "What then shall we say? Is the Torah sin? Let it not be! However, I did not know sin except through the Torah. For also the covetousness I knew not if the Torah had not said, 'You shall not covet'." One must also read what comes before verse 6 to get an understanding.
1) I mis-spoke by saying ritual when I meant to say cerimonial.

2) God told Abraham to circumcise for a reason and a divine purpose. I would never say Circumcision is barbaric as God meant it to be. On the other hand the type of circumcision done in hospitals today is utterly barbaric as they have pain meds but chose to not give it to babies. Circumcision today in hospitals for the most part are not for Jewish circumcision, it is purely an elective procedure where a baby is mutilated with no pain meds and that is barbaric.

3)You claim I have taken Romans 7:6 out of context yet you failed to give any evidence to support that claim. By stating it is out of context you are saying that those words mean something else based on a larger context. Yet the greater context is being "released from the law by death' in vs. 2 and the verse in question states that we are released from the law thru death. So in other words you are completely wrong in your groundless charge that it is out of context.
 
Last edited by a moderator: